The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMichelle Malkin Archive
Schumer: Surrender to One-Party Rule or Else; Update: Against One-Party Rule Before He Was for It
Bow down.
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Scroll for update…

Nancy Pelosi promises that total Democrat control will mean a Congress that is the most “bipartisan” ever. (link) Now, Sen. Chuck Schumer tells us that American cannot afford anything other than complete one-party rule.

Via CongressDaily:

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer of New York today argued that in the current climate a politically divided government is a bad thing. He was seeking to counter a closing GOP argument that voters should not give Democrats control of the White House, the House and a potentially filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. “They can’t win on domestic policy; they can’t win on foreign policy; they can’t win on sort of trying to tag our candidates; so the latest theme is, ‘Oh, let’s have some balance in government. Let’s have divided government,’ ” Schumer said at a press briefing. “Our view is very simple, and that is Republican senators, Republican incumbents aren’t for checks and balances. They’re for blocking change and backing [President] Bush.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has made an argument against a filibuster-proof majority in a handful of its races, and the theme is making its way into some of the closing TV ads for Republican senators, particularly in North Carolina and Kentucky, which have long leaned to the right. In Kentucky, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney sent a fundraising appeal on behalf of Minority Leader McConnell arguing that should Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama be elected president, Republicans need to preserve some semblance of control in the Senate. “We believe Americans don’t agree with Democrats that one-party rule is OK,” said a NRSC spokeswoman. “If Democrats control all branches of government, there are no checks and balances, there’s no debate and Democrats are beholden to radical liberal special interests.”

This is a “Kneel before Zod!” moment, people:

***

A reader notes:

So he does not stand by his earlier statement?

Chuck Schumer on a one party rule (FOX News Sunday, 4/10/05):

“And again, you can’t just have one-party rule here.”

“The point is that there have to be checks and balances here. A check and a balance does not necessarily always mean a majority vote. We have 60 votes before you can do certain kinds of spending increases. The Senate is always supposed to be, Chris, the cooling saucer.”

(Republished from MichelleMalkin.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democrats, Nancy Pelosi